ITAT Bangalore Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal condoned the 41-day delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It also held that the belated filing of the return and audit report for AY 2016-17 should be accepted based on CBDT circulars and the fact that the AO had the documents before assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to several notices from the CIT(A) and had missed a final notice, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) adopted a technical approach by focusing on expenditure rather than the genuineness of the trust's objectives and its growing stage. Minor financial discrepancies and the fact that activities were in the initial stage should not be grounds for rejection.

The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii). It found that the units had independent power connections and that the lack of separate water sub-meters was due to the regulations in place during the assessment years.

The Tribunal held that once a regular assessment under Section 143(3) is completed, the intimation order under Section 143(1) ceases to be operative. The disallowance made by the CPC solely through the intimation order, without reaffirmation in the final assessment order, is not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the TPO incorrectly considered the total AE transactions and did not grant an opportunity for reconciliation, making the adjustment excessive. It was also observed that the TPO benchmarked the entire turnover instead of only AE transactions, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The Tribunal, following the Bangalore Bench decision in Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, restored the matter to the TPO for fresh adjudication after verifying the correct value of international transactions and granting an opportunity of hearing. For the second issue, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that interest on receivables might not be an international transaction and that the adjustment was made without an opportunity. The matter was restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication after proper verification and opportunity. For the third issue concerning the provision for diminution in investment, the Tribunal held that while a revised return is generally required, appellate authorities can consider claims if facts are on record. It noted that the assessee voluntarily disallowed the provision in its revised computation, which appeared justified as such provisions are generally not allowable unless the loss is ascertained. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the revised computation and justification of the disallowance. The issues of TDS credit and interest levy were also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) adopted a technical approach by focusing on expenditure rather than the genuineness of the trust's objectives and its growing stage. Minor financial discrepancies and the fact that activities were in the initial stage should not be grounds for rejection.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to several notices from the CIT(A) and had missed a final notice, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to several notices from the CIT(A) and had missed a final notice, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to several notices from the CIT(A) and had missed a final notice, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to several notices from the CIT(A) and had missed a final notice, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to several notices from the CIT(A) and had missed a final notice, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to several notices from the CIT(A) and had missed a final notice, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of activities at the registration stage should be based on the trust's objects and proposed activities, not solely on the extent of expenditure or accumulated funds. The CIT(E) adopted a technical approach by focusing on expenditure rather than the growing stage of the trust's activities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii). It found that the units had independent power connections and that the lack of separate water sub-meters was due to the regulations in place during the assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii). It found that the units had independent power connections and that the lack of separate water sub-meters was due to the regulations in place during the assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of Syndicate Bank, which no longer existed, was bad in law and infructuous. Since the income was already assessed substantively in the hands of Canara Bank in another order, the protective additions made in the impugned order were ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of unbilled revenue back to the AO for fresh examination to reconcile discrepancies. The issue of Section 10AA exemption was also directed to be decided by the AO in line with DRP directions, and the matter of book profit computation under Section 115JB was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of activities at the registration stage should be based on the trust's objects and proposed activities, not solely on the extent of expenditure or accumulated funds. The CIT(E) adopted a technical approach by focusing on expenditure rather than the growing stage of the trust's activities.

The ITAT noted that eligibility for Section 80G(5) approval is contingent upon the assessee first obtaining registration under Section 12AB, an appeal for which is pending. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the Section 80G(5) appeal to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication after the Section 12AB matter is decided, granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of cash deposits under Section 69A, holding that when income is declared under Section 44AD, cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained unless the AO proves they are unrelated to the declared turnover. For the Form 26AS discrepancy, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income only on the differential amount, applying the assessee's declared rate of 11.5%.

The Tribunal found that the issue of royalty payment benchmarking to NIL was a significant dispute. However, the judgment also addresses other grounds related to foreign tax credit, dividend distribution tax, and ad-hoc interest, which were remanded to the AO for verification. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that procedural irregularities should not defeat the substantive claim where charitable activities are being carried out. It set aside both rejection orders and remanded the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a directive to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had declared substantial income over several years, which was sufficient to explain the source of the gold and jewellery. Citing judicial precedent and CBDT instructions for high-net-worth individuals, the Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable and directed the Assessing Officer to delete it.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that procedural irregularities should not defeat the substantive claim where charitable activities are being carried out. It set aside both rejection orders and remanded the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a directive to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, as previously decided. However, it directed the AO to allow expenses for earning such income under Section 57(iii) after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit evidence.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) deserved to be condoned, as refusal to do so would deprive the assessee of contesting a significant tax demand. The Tribunal found that procedural technicalities should not override substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee was unsustainable. It was found that the cash was part of a larger disclosure made by Dinesh Kumar Singhi, and taxing it again in the assessee's hands would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, as previously decided. However, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for expenses (cost of funds) incurred in earning such income under Section 57(iii).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's circumstances and the interest of substantial justice. They set aside the assessment order and directed a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income, as previously decided. However, the assessee is entitled to claim expenses for earning such income under Section 57(iii).

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for interest income, as previously decided. However, it directed the AO to allow deduction for expenses incurred in earning such income under Section 57(iii) after providing the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence.

The Tribunal held that the time limit for filing Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Since the assessee filed Form 67 before the processing of the revised return, the denial of FTC was not justified.

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing the return of income, subsequent to which the Assessing Officer passed a consequential order granting the Section 80P deduction to the assessee. The tribunal allowed the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if necessary.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's circumstances and the interest of substantial justice. They set aside the assessment order and directed a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have granted the adjournment and that the CIT(A) did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by not providing a speaking order with reasons.

The Tribunal held that the AO had expanded the scope of limited scrutiny beyond the issues for which the case was selected, without following the mandatory procedure laid down by the CBDT. Therefore, the variations made in the assessment order were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the draft assessment order, not being signed, was invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. Consequently, the final assessment order and subsequent proceedings based on it were also deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO had expanded the scope of limited scrutiny beyond the issues identified in the notice without obtaining the necessary approval. The AO's recharacterization of the shares and disallowance of the capital loss were therefore considered without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the capital contribution and advances were genuine and explained, as the receivables infused as capital were realized and used for advances. The addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000 was also considered a double addition as it was already disallowed by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a reasonable cause that prevented the assessee from filing on time. On merits, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, partly allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine based on an incorrect date of receipt of the reassessment order, which led to a miscalculation of the delay. The CIT(A) also failed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancy and should have decided the appeal on merits, including the validity of the reopening.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 149 days in filing the appeals. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission of an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit, which demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal found that the delay was not intentional and that the assessee had taken steps to rectify the situation promptly. The ratio decidendi is that the Tribunal has the power to condone delays under the relevant rules and provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules, provided a reasonable cause is shown. The Tribunal directed that the appeals be admitted for hearing on merits. No specific issue regarding the rejection of applications under Section 80G(5)(iii) or Section 12(1)(ac)(iii) was decided, as the appeals were admitted after condonation of delay.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 149 days in filing the appeals. The reasoning provided by the Tribunal was that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. While the specific grounds mentioned in the affidavit are not detailed in the provided excerpt, the Tribunal's decision to proceed with the appeals indicates that it found the reasons presented to be sufficient. The Tribunal noted the delay and the assessee's submission for condonation. The operative direction is to proceed with the appeals on merits, implying that the substantive issues will be addressed. No specific finding on the substantive issues (approval under section 80G and registration under section 12) is recorded in this portion of the judgment, as the focus is on the delay.

The Tribunal held that since the entire sale consideration was received in the assessee's name, TDS was deducted in her name, and she discharged the capital gains tax liability for all legal heirs, she is entitled to the full TDS credit. The denial on technical grounds was not sustained.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for settlement under the VSV Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.